January 28 2013
President Obama and Secretary Clinton on "60 Minutes"
What was the point of the bizarre love-in between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broadcast last night on "60 Minutes"?
Bill Clinton made a speech at the Democratic convention that absolved President Obama of any responsibility for our economy. So it seems particularly fitting that President Obama and Hillary Clinton would sit down to a softball interview that dwelt almost exclusively on what a swell relationship they have. There was no recognition last night of the exponentially multiplying troubles abroad, many directly tied to the Obama foreign policies.
As captured video by the Weekly Standard, here are two highlights:
President Obama knew expectations were set too high for him; Mrs. Clinton still has lingering effects from falling on her head (though she would not answer a question about her glasses, which appear to indicate that she is suffering from double vision).
One report notes that the interview was a way to amicably end the “marriage of convenience” between Clinton and Obama and that it is "raising eyebrows in status-obsessed Washington,” where it is largely interpreted as paving the way for a Clinton bid for the White House in 2016. Getting beyond Benghazi without answering questions is the most immediate requirement for that project. The secretary is doing swimingly on that front.
The general level of discussion was comparable to the chatter on "The View," but entirely unctuous. Asked by Kroft why he wanted to do the unusual interview, the president said, “I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we’ve had." Also in the interview, Clinton said: "Why did he ask me (to serve in the Cabinet) and why did I say yes? Because we both love our country.”
If you love your country you will ask Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state?
Meanwhile, Joe Curl in the Washington Times has a scary piece on Secretary Clinton’s worldview, as reflected in her testimony on Benghazi last week before mostly inept GOP questioners. Curl starts with the secretary’s “what does it matter?” outburst that so neatly encapsulated the Clintonian ideal when it comes to anything messy:
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the frightening Democratic mindset. The administration had buried the matter for months in an internal investigation: No one from the White House to the State Department would comment on what happened, turning away queries with the simple: “It’s under investigation.” And they weren’t about to start explaining now. …
You know, to be clear,” the secretary explained, as if to children, “it is, from my perspective, less important today, looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it [sic], than to find them and bring them to justice.”
So, from her perspective, there doesn’t need to be any investigation into why the administration said what it said. It’s like a child breaking a lamp, lying about it to his parents, and then saying, “Look, we could go on and on about who said what about breaking the lamp, but fixing the lamp now is really all that’s important — let’s move on.”
And that is terrifying. The secretary of state said simply, “The ends justify the means.” The Obama administration had lied about what happened in Benghazi to help secure a second term for the president, buried the murder of Americans in a private investigation, then, when finally questioned, said, “What difference does it make!?” what we said way back then.
As was anticipated all along, Mrs. Clinton is never going to tell us about Benghazi.
The real scandal is that people like Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" are willing to play along as the world grows more frightening by the day.